• 1 Post
  • 239 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 29th, 2023

help-circle
  • The non-stop chimes and beeps and spoken alerts in cars in South Korea is absolutely maddening. With these constant distractions, there’s absolutely no way this makes driving safer.

    Imagine passing a speed limit sign that warns of an upcoming speed bump. It will immediately start loud beeping because you’re now speeding as you roll out, while simultaneously speaking out loud what the new speed limit is, while simultaneously also saying there’s a speed bump, all while your music and navigation play as well.

    Thank goodness this was vetoed.



  • Connecting a classic (non-Google TV) Chromecast to a new WiFi (or heaven forbid a hotel WiFi with a capture portal) was always such a pain. And casting over networks without mDNS is flaky at best and otherwise downright impossible.

    By contrast, I’ve loved taking along my Chromecast with Google TV to hotels, along with:

    • A VPN client installed it already,
    • An Android phone that can create a WiFi AP while connected to the hotel WiFi,
    • A Bluetooth speaker and my Bluetooth headphones paired to it so I get great audio as well.

    This has been a complete gamechanger and a genuine upgrade over yesteryear’s Chromecasts.






  • It would be better if direct sales were allowed, but unfortunately dealerships are required by law in almost all US states. The shady bit is how Tesla got one of the few exceptions and continues to be exempt despite being among the leading car manufacturers in the USA. All other leading manufacturers are required by state laws to sell their vehicles through dealerships.

    Tesla’s NCAS chargers only began to allow non-Teslas to use it from 2019, so this is kind of recent history in terms of car ownership and network coverage.



  • Regarding the sales process: in Tesla’s early days, they received an exception to the requirement for needing to use dealerships. Generally this is very shady and is outright unfair towards other car manufacturers—even Rivian didn’t get this same special treatment because lawmakers saw how Tesla abused it.

    Tesla’s growing monopoly on charging networks isn’t something to be proud of, in my opinion, and neither is their proprietary charging cable. We need open standards.

    Also, Tesla’s mileage estimates are notoriously exaggerated. Perhaps technically you can get the claimed range if the entire trip is downhill…


  • Android has no way of knowing if a tag is “unauthorized” because Apple does not provision access to their tag network. You could, in principle, ignore tags that you know about, but you’d have to do it by identifying it by some arbitrary hexadecimal GATT ID.

    As always, Apple wants to keep it that way, because it gives a poor experience on Android.

    Theoretically (and I might be wrong about this), without attempting to reverse engineer how Apple assigns these codes, there would be no to differentiate AirTags, AirPods, iPhones, etc.


  • There is a much more sinister issue that Google is trying to resolve with this: it’s currently possible to stalk somebody by placing a tracker fob in their bag or on their car, so long as you know the victim’s device doesn’t support it.

    Suppose some creeper with an iPhone is stalking a victim with an Android phone. So long as they use an Apple AirTag, the victim will never know they have a tracker trailing them wherever they go. And in reverse, the issue is the same.

    Apple isn’t concerned about this, because they hold a monopoly in the market they care most about and can leverage this as an iPhone-only feature. After all, so long as you have an iPhone, you’ll be warned about an AirTag you don’t own following you. Apple wants to leverage this as an exclusive safety feature and have no intention of allowing other devices to do the same.

    Apologies for providing this background as I know that this goes against the circle jerk of accusing Google of infringing our privacy. Feel free to disregard this context of it being beneficial to our collective privacy.







  • poopkins@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.worldGoogle is the new IBM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    While I agree that this is a risk, I sincerely don’t believe this happens often when interviewing at Google.

    For one, employees are continuously reminded to avoid bias in anything that they do, from the way in which interviews are conducted to the design of products.

    Googlers are reminded to avoid this on a nonstop basis through annual trainings or even artwork and signage throughout Google offices that target specific bias-awareness programs. In the restrooms, posters with detailed recommendations, often tailored towards engineering, make for an educational read while you’re doing your business. Screens at the cafeteria show prompts challenging you to rethink assumptions. Dedicated teams are involved in performing reviews of proposals and code solely from the perspective of inclusivity.

    I’ve never seen anything regarding “desirable traits” as part of a job listing. Hiring managers provide a job description that is reviewed to avoid bias, and pass along specific requirements for education and professional experience to recruitment teams. Recruiters take a first pass at CVs for those, and I’m honestly not sure how some kind of personality trait could even be distilled from a CV. Once a candidate that fulfills the minimum requirements is matched, they are set up to discuss other requirements with the recruiter, like relocation and timelines. I don’t recall from my own experience ever being asked anything aside from these practicalities.

    For interviewing specifically, there are multiple steps needed to qualify as an interviewer, each of which puts a heavy emphasis on avoiding bias. The interview question itself needs to be vetted by a dedicated team and interviewers usually select their questions from the pre-vetted ones. Prior to performing your first interview you need to be doubly shadowed with topics like avoiding bias in mind. When asked to perform an interview, the details about the role that the candidate is applying to are provided and the interviewer is required to review the CV themselves ahead of time. As evidence of this, you’ll see that the interviewer will often match items from the CV against the listing to give the candidate the opportunity to expand on it and offer more detailed insights.

    Rating the interview is performed within explicit rubrics, each of which with detailed descriptions. There’s not an option to simply reject a candidate—interviewers need to select options from these rubrics and provide evidence. This is in part why you will see interviewers vigorously taking notes during an interview.

    The first phone screen has more relaxed requirements as a general confirmation that the candidate exhibits the skill level expected at the listing’s minimum requirements.

    There are at least four in person interviews that then follow, performed by different interviewers. These results are reviewed by a hiring committee who makes a final decision solely based on the evidence with no insights into the associated candidate.

    I have personally never worked at a company that is so meticulous in avoiding confirmation bias. In one smaller company that I worked at, I was the only interviewer and the sole decision maker for a candidate. Honestly, I cannot envision how Google can do better than they currently are with hiring.

    I believe that the frustrating thing about getting hired there is simply the high bar and disparity between the high supply of candidates and the relatively low offering of positions. When you’re prematurely rejected after submitting your CV or you’re rejected after interviewing, remind yourself that you aren’t necessarily unqualified or that the interview was unfair, but that many qualified candidates might have already applied, or the head count may have been removed, or an internal transfer took place or some other reason unrelated to your skillset.